SHER BAHADUR GULATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHER Bahadur Gulati, petitioner-1, along with his sons Sushil Kumar Gulati and Sunil Kumar, petitioners-2 and 3 respectively, has come to this Court in criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint Annexure P2, order Annexure P3 and FIR No. 283 dated 19.8 90, registered with police station Ambala Cantt for offences under Sections 406, 420, 207, 498-A, 304-B read with section 120-B of the IPC and the subsequent proceedings in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ambala Cantt.

(2.) SOHAN Nandwani, respondent-2 (complainant) filed the complaint Annexure P2. The facts, briefly enumerated, are to the effect that Smt. Renu Bala daughter of the complainant was married to Sunil Gulati petitioner-2 on 9.12 86 at Ambala Cantt. The complainant spent more than 40,000/- on the marriage, and also gave dowry detailed in Annexures A and B. These articles had been entrusted to Smt. Raj Rani accused-3 and Sher Bahadur Gulati accused-2. The articles were meant for the use of Smt. Renu Bala. The petitioners were, however, not happy with the dowry given. Sunil Gulati took her to Baroda and they started living there in the Railway quarters. However, the behaviour and attitude of the petitioners towards Smt. Renu. Bala was not proper and she was subjected to maltreatment. When Sher Bahadur Gulati was contacted he refused to intervene. In August 1987, Smt. Renu and Sunil Kumar Gulati visited Ambala to attend a Bhagwati Jagran and on a demand having been made by petitioner 2 and his father for a gold chain and clothes of all the accused amounting to Rs. 5,000/- were given. In February 1988, she gave birth to a male child at Baroda and customary gifts were given, but the some were not accepted by Smt. Raj Rani, claiming that the same were not upto their standard. Smt. Renu Bala used to complain about maltreatment and the petitioners used to make further demands. On receipt of a telegram that the condition of Smt. Renu Bala was serious, the wife and son of the petitioner went to Baroda where Renu Bala informed them that her husband and his mother and brother had been forcing her to go to Ambala Cantt. and bring a scooter and if her parents refused to give these articles, the should not return. She, however. refused to comply with the same and her husband, his mother and brother burnt her Sunil Kumar Gulati told the complainant's wife that Renu Bala had already given a statement favourable to him and that no body could do anything. The wife and son of the complainant were also threatened that in case they reported the matter to any one, they shall be similarly dealt with. On 21.5.1990, the complainant received a telegram that his daughter had died. It was most shocking since Renu Bala had almost recovered from the burinjuries and it was, thus the maltreatment which had caused her death. The complainant approached the authorities at Baroda, bat the Police did not take any action.

(3.) THE incident with respect to the death of Smt. Renu Bala and maltreatment complained of had occurred at Baroda. Admittedly, the deceased had given birth to a son and even if it may be assumed that Sunil Kumar Gulati, petitioner is not a legal heir to the property of his wife, on account of having caused her death, the minor son shall be the heir to the property of his mother. The father of Smt. Renu Bala (deceased) does not become entitled to make a demand and recover back the dowry articles. The minor, admittedly, is at present in the custody of his father Sunil Kumar Gulati. The keeping of the articles of Renu Bala by Sunil Kumar Gulati in this situation, is on behalf of his minor son, he being the natural guardian of the person and property of the minor. No offence under Section 406, IPC is, thus made out against the petitioners. Annexure P1 is a notice issued by the complainant through his counsel, Shri D.K. Mittal, advocate and a demand was made for the return of the dowry articles or their cost and also for payment of maintenance of the minor. A week's time was given to meet those demands and a was further incorporated that in case of default, the complainant shall be compelled to institute legal action against the petitioners for killing his daughter. It appears that the petitioners had not met those demands and the threat has been carried out. Such like litigation has to be described as one with an oblique motive.